In the newest variation of legal attacks on climate science, tandem lawsuits were filed against climate science blogger and computer scientist John Mashey,[1] in retaliation for his work to uncover academic misconduct by several researchers who disputed widely-accepted findings on global warming. (There is a 97% scientific consensus that man-made climate change is happening.[2]) Two of these researchers, Edward Wegman and Yasmin Said, served Mashey with complaints this spring, claiming that Mashey’s work connecting them with plagiarism, falsifications, errors, and funding misuse[3] constituted “tortious interference with contract” and “conspiracy” — and claiming that because of this, he owed them millions of dollars in damages.

Wegman and Said were among the authors of the 2006 “Wegman Report,” which has since been discredited by Mashey[4] and[5] many[6] others,[7] and which was originally commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) as part of a Congressional investigation of climate scientists.[8] Subsequent work by Wegman and Said, based on the Wegman Report, was later retracted for plagiarism[9] and the investigations themselves were criticized as “political intimidation.”[10]

In their lawsuits, Wegman and Said claimed that because Mashey had voiced his findings of plagiarism and misconduct regarding the Wegman Report and other work, and otherwise “injured [their] reputation[s],” they were “forced to resign” from positions as editors of an academic journal, causing them to lose profits “as well as the ability to edit and publish, and the professional prestige and credibility such a position entails.” Wegman and Said sought an astonishing $2 million in economic and punitive damages from Mashey, plus reimbursement for their legal fees.

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund stepped in to pay Mashey’s legal defense costs, which totaled over $15,000. Sadly, legal bills in the tens of thousands of dollars – or more – are not uncommon for those subjected to harassing legal attacks, not to mention the substantial time drains and mental anguish such litigation can cause defendants (especially in cases that drag on for years, as is often the case). Mashey’s litigation also illustrates that the entire climate science community is at risk for becoming collateral damage in the “street fight”[11] on climate science.

There is a silver lining here: several weeks after Mashey’s attorneys filed dual motions to dismiss, and days before a court-scheduled hearing on the matter, both Wegman and Said withdrew their complaints against Mashey. The withdrawals were filed without explanation and “without prejudice,” meaning the plaintiffs may re-file at any time, a very real danger – but it also means that Mashey is no longer being subjected to the hassles and expenses of active litigation.

For more on John Mashey’s case, please check out his blog post on the experience here.

Add a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

Disclaimer

This blog provides a forum for legal and policy analysis on a variety of climate-related issues. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Climate Change Law.